alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2464

AN ACT

To amend Public Law 103–93 to provide additional

Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.lands within the State of Utah for the Goshute
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2464

AN ACT

To amend Public Law 103–93 to provide additional lands

within the State of Utah for the Goshute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2464 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF CERTAIN UTAH STATE LANDS TO

2 GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION.

3 The Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of

4 1993 (107 Stat. 995) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating section 11 as section 12;

6 and

7 (2) by inserting after section 10 the following

8 new section:

9 ‘‘SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL GOSHUTE INDIAN RESERVATION

10 LANDS.

11 ‘‘(a) FURTHER ADDITIONS TO GOSHUTE RESERVA12 TION.—In addition to the lands described in section 3, for

13 the purpose of securing in trust for the Goshute Indian

14 Tribe certain additional public lands and lands belonging

15 to the State of Utah, which comprise approximately 8,000

16 acres of surface and subsurface estate, as generally de17 picted on the map entitled ‘Additional Utah-Goshute Ex18 change’, dated July 1, 1994, such public lands and State

19 lands are hereby declared to be part of the Goshute Indian

20 Reservation in the State of Utah effective upon the com21 pletion of conveyance of the State lands from the State

22 of Utah and acceptance of title by the United States.

23 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary of the Interior

24 is authorized to acquire through exchange those lands and

25 interests in land described in subsection (a) which are
3

•HR 2464 EH

1 owned by the State of Utah, subject to valid existing

2 rights.

3 ‘‘(c) APPLICATION OF PRIOR PROVISIONS.—(1) Ex4 cept as provided in paragraph (2), the remaining provi5 sions of this Act which are applicable to the lands to be

6 transferred to the Goshute Indian Tribe pursuant to sec7 tion 3 shall also apply to the lands subject to this section.

8 ‘‘(2) The Goshute Indian Tribe will be responsible for

9 payment of the costs of appraisal of the lands to be ac10 quired pursuant to this section, which costs shall be paid

11 prior to the transfer of such lands.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Joseph A. Duffy, Appellant, *v.*Arthur L. Meyer, Respondent.

*Duffy*v. Meyer, 135 App. Div. 915, affirmed.

(Argued March 27, 1911;

decided April 25, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 8, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict in an action to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned plaintiff by the fraudulent representations of defendant.

*Edward W. S. Johnston*for appellant.

*Abraham Benedict*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur; Cullen, Ch. J., Cray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Cóllin, JJ..
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Palmetto
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary Consolidated Income Statements and Consolidated
Balance Sheets and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          30,484
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    112,476
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        484,909
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (5,663)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 656,037
<DEPOSITS>                                     557,305
<SHORT-TERM>                                    45,789
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,570
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,235
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 656,037
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,719
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,648
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   268
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                34,635
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,994
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,753
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,882
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,935
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 16,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,195
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,239
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,239
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.82
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,221
<LOANS-PAST>                                       187
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,362
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   (3,803)
<RECOVERIES>                                       169
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,663
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Henry Clews and another, Respondents, v. Cornelius Reilly, Appellant

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to abide event.
§ 534.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Statutory definitions and terms.* All terms used in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329 are used according to their statutory meaning.
( b ) As used in this part—
“Control relationship” means the relationship that exists between manufacturers that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, one or more other manufacturers. “Predecessor” means a manufacturer whose rights have been vested in and whose burdens have been assumed by another manufacturer. “Successor” means a manufacturer that has become vested with the rights and assumed the burdens of another manufacturer.
From: Parillo, John (Penske) [mailto:john.parillo@penske.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:01 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

As much as possible there should be no regulation of the withdrawals of 401k's. 

While the idea of setting up an annuity may seem to make sense, it should be up to the individual 

to do so as allowing regulation to do the same thing is fraught with potential complications. 

• Would the treasury be responsible if the person outlives their annuity? 

• But the annuity followed the guidelines set up by the government.. 

• What about unspent funds at the end of life? would they revert to the state? This would 

eliminate one large reason for participating, that is to build wealth for my children as well. 

Urge this to be left alone.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18163]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-155-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone 29; Application for Subzone; BlueOval SK LLC; 
Glendale, Kentucky

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Louisville & Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee 
of FTZ 29, requesting subzone status for the facility of BlueOval SK 
LLC, located in Glendale, Kentucky. The application was submitted 
pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 
400). It was formally docketed on August 18, 2023.
    The proposed subzone (1424.7 acres) is located at 2022 Battery Park 
Drive, Glendale, Kentucky. No authorization for production activity has 
been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to 
the existing activation limit of FTZ 29.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Juanita Chen of the 
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbddcfc1fbcfc9dadfde95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1d7c5cbf1c5c3d0d5d49fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>. The closing period for their receipt is October 2, 2023. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to October 17, 2023.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information Section'' section of the FTZ Board's 
website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701a05111e1904115e1318151e3004021114155e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="335946525d5a47521d505b565d7347415257561d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 18, 2023.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18163 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, October 30, 1995 (136), Para 136.4 Approval of the Journal]
[Page 1799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.136.4  approval of the journal

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, announced he had examined and 
approved the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, October 26, 1995.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal was approved.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Eric Haskell, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Eric Haskell

Eric Haskell
Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.369 What is the discretion of an initiating official in starting a PIE proceeding? ( a ) Initiating officials have broad discretion in deciding whether to start a PIE proceeding.
( b ) In exercising this discretion, the initiating official must consider the Department's policy regarding the seriousness of the service agent's conduct (see § 40.365) and all information he or she has obtained to this point concerning the facts of the case. The initiating official may also consider the availability of the resources needed to pursue a PIE proceeding.
( c ) A decision not to initiate a PIE proceeding does not necessarily mean that the Department regards a service agent as being in compliance or that the Department may not use other applicable remedies in a situation of noncompliance.
<TABLE>
                                                                            EXHIBIT 11.1 

                                 VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                              (Thousands of Dollars, Except Per Share Amounts)

<CAPTION>
                                                                       Year Ending December 31,
                                                                  1995           1994           1993    

<S>                                                            <C>              <C>              <C>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 ASSUMING NO DILUTION:
   Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $   59,838       $   26,882       $   36,424 
   Less:  Preferred stock dividend requirements. . . . . . . .    (11,818)          (9,490)          (1,262)
   Net income applicable to common stock . . . . . . . . . . . $   48,020       $   17,392       $   35,162 

   Weighted average number of shares of common
     stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,651,914       43,369,836       43,098,808 

   Earnings per share assuming no dilution . . . . . . . . . . $     1.10       $      .40       $      .82 

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:
     Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $   59,838       $   26,882       $   36,424 
     Less:  Preferred stock dividend requirements. . . . . . .    (11,818)          (9,490)          (1,262)
     Add:  Reduction of preferred stock dividends
       applicable to the assumed conversion of 
       Convertible Preferred Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     10,781            8,325            -     
     Net income applicable to common stock
       assuming full dilution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $   58,801       $   25,717       $   35,162 

     Weighted average number of shares of common
       stock outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,651,914       43,369,836       43,098,808 
     Weighted average common stock equivalents
       applicable to stock options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    413,809           56,926           67,017 
     Weighted average shares issuable upon 
       conversion of Convertible Preferred Stock . . . . . . .  6,381,798        4,948,079            -     

     Weighted average shares used for computation. . . . . . . 50,447,521       48,374,841       43,165,825 

     Earnings per share assuming full dilution . . . . . . . . $     1.17 <F1>  $      .53 <F1>  $      .81 <F2>

<FN>
<F1> This calculation is submitted in accordance with paragraph
     601(b)(11) of Regulation S-K although it is contrary to APB
     Opinion No. 15 because it produces an antidilutive result.

<F2> This calculation is submitted in accordance with paragraph
     601(b)(11) of Regulation S-K although it is not required by
     APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less
     than 3%.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### Jonathan Hamilton *v.*J. P. Merril and A. O. Shepard.

*A*judgment rendered by a court of this state in a proceeding under the watercraft act, against a steamboat by name, will not, in a collateral suit, be held void for want of jurisdiction, where it does not appear that the judgment was rendered in a maritime cause of action.

Error reserved in the District Court of Gallia county.

The original action was brought on a redelivery bond executed under section 5 of act of February 26, 1840, entitled “ an act to provide for the collection of claims against steamboats,” etc. It was alleged in the petition that the plaintiff, on the 8th of May, 1860, commenced a suit in the Common Pleas of Gallia county against the steamboat “ R. B. Hamilton,” and caused the same to be *12seized; that to effect the release of the boat the defendants executed the bond sued on; that judgment was afterward rendered in the action against the steamboat, and execution issued thereon ; and that the defendants failed to produce the-boat to answer the judgment, as they were bound to do, etc.

To this petition the defendants demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff.

This petition is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the Common Pleas, and the sustaining of the demurrer is assigned for error.

*Simeon Nash,*for plaintiff in error.

*Neal 8¡ Cherrington,*for defendants in error.

By the Court.

The judgment below should be reversed if the Courtof Common Pleas had no jurisdiction, under our watercraft act, to entertain the action against the steamboat “R. B. Hamilton,” in which the bond sued on was taken. The question of jurisdiction in that case depends on the fact, whether or not the cause of action in the case was a maritime cause of action. *Steamboat General Buell*v. *Long,*18 Ohio St. 521; *The Scow Tuttle*v. *Buck,*23 Ohio St. 565.

The record before us does not disclose the nature of the cause of action against the steamboat “ R. B. Hamilton.” The presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction of the court, and must prevail, until the contrary is shown.

*Judgment reversed and- cause remanded.*
From: Mike Lambert [mailto:malamber@quik.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:39 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

We can not afford your help.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to [SECTION]906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of her knowledge: 1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon
---------------------
Marsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer


August 10, 2006

                                       43
_____________ No. 95-3260WM

_____________ Dennis Lee Etter, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: May 15, 1996 Filed: June 4, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Dennis L ee Etter appeals the district court's denial of Etter's 2 8 U. S.C. § 2255 motion. Etter contends his sentencing counsel wa s ineffective because c ounsel failed to object to the classification of the methamphetamine as d-methamphetamine, to the inc lusion in the base offense level c alculation of the amount of methamphetamine distributed befor e Etter's involvement in the conspiracy, and to the lack of a recommendation in the presentence report for a mitigating-role reduction. Because Etter waived these contentions by virtue of the stipul ations in his written plea agreem ent, we conclude counsel's failure to raise the objections Ette r purpor tedlyasked him to raise could not have prejudiced Etter . Specif ically, Etter stipulated he was accountable for the amount o f meth amphetamine attributed to him, and that he was not entitled to a mitigating-role adjustment. Etter also agreed to a base offense leve l derived from treating the substance involved as

### -2-

d-methamphetamine. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
A DAVIS &
HH HARMAN up ATTORNEYS AT LAW

THE WILLARD
1455 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

TEL 202-347-2230 February 9, 2011

FAX 202-393-3310 WWW.DAVIS- HARMAN.COM

Office of Regulations and Interpretations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Attn: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule
Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

Re: Request to testify at hearing on RIN 1210-AB32, definition of fiduciary proposed rule
Dear Sir or Madam:

We are requesting the opportunity to testify at the hearing on the Department of Labor’s (the
“Department”) proposed regulations addressing the definition of a fiduciary scheduled for March
1, 2011 (and possibly March 2). Davis & Harman LLP represents a wide range of clients,
including insurance companies, mutual funds, and brokerage firms, on whose behalf we are
requesting to testify. 1 would be testifying at the hearing.

The Department’s proposed regulations would have far-reaching and very significant effects in
numerous respects. Our testimony, like our February 3 comment letter, would focus on one
critical aspect of the proposed regulations: the effect on the investment assistance provided by
brokers and dealers.

Our testimony would address:

e The interaction between the Department’s proposed regulations and the project underway
at the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) regarding the standard of
conduct applicable to brokers and dealers with respect to retail customers.

e The need for active coordination between the Department, the SEC and other responsible
governmental entities, and the potential harm to consumers that could result from a
failure to coordinate.

e The President’s recent Executive Order regarding regulatory coordination.

e How coordination can be best achieved.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

z

Randolf H. Hardock
*Thursday, January 14, 1999*

MOTION DOCKET

98-2507.

#### Crowe v. Owens Corning Fiberglas.

Cuyahoga App. No. 73206.

This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to withdraw motion for stay,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion to withdraw be, and hereby is, granted.